Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hollow Deficit Debate Ignores the Burden of Afghanistan Military Spending
Congressman McDermott's floor speech reminds us that out-of-control Afghanistan spending brought down the Soviet Union.
At this moment the hollow debate on the deficit has sucked up almost all the oxygen in the Capitol. Yet the war in Afghanistan which costs us hundreds of billions of dollars a year is scarcely mentioned. Sixty-four percent of the people of this country believe that the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, so representing "the people" should mean using Congressional power to end that war — not least because the war budget is the biggest potential source of money to pay for jobs.
Congress isn't doing that yet. But it's encouraging to remember that there are a few — painfully few! — members of Congress still prepared to really represent the views of their constituents. Seattle-area Congressman Jim McDermott spoke on the floor of the House this week, focusing once again on the unacceptable costs of the Afghanistan war.
McDermott identified the war as reflecting the kind of military expansion that brings about the collapse of empires. And he even took on the popular claim that it was Ronald Reagan's presidency that brought down the Soviet Union, reminding us all that it was military spending, especially in Afghanistan, that actually brought about Soviet collapse.
Crucially, McDermott noted that the U.S. is now spending two-and-a-half times as big a percentage of its GDP on its ten-year war in Afghanistan, as the Soviet Union spent during its ten years of war in Afghanistan. Here's the speech:
24 Comments so far
Show AllFor the many who have missed this vital info: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988227/-CBO:-Deficit-will-DISAPPEAR-if-Congress-Does-Nothing!
"Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible"-A. Philip Randolph [1889-1979], African-American civil rights leader
Yes, too bad someone has not figured out a way to make peace profitable. Just imagine if the trillions of $$$$$ spent by the war department was instead spent by the peace department! That is the problem: How do we make wars unprofitable for the war profiteers?
War profiteers are just opportunists. They don't cause the wars. Wars are fought over resources and markets, and today, that means energy resources. War profiteering in the sense of Halliburton et al., disgusting as it is, is small fries compared to the conquest of the world's oil supplies. Any country with oil had better roll out the red carpet for Shell or ExxonMobil, or else.
Errol,
"Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible" was a great idea.
Wall Street, in true Orwellian fashion, must have read that and did the following:
Made wars profitable for politicians and thereby made them impossible to stop.
I am worried.
The complete ignoring of the will of the People in favor of the Ultra Rich, the Corporatists/corporations, and the useful idiots of the Christian Riech does not bode well for our future. I see a violent revolt at some time and I do not see a favorable outcome for that. The sophisication of weaponry and the complete amorality of international/domestic mercenaries who will be employed in the suppression of any revolt insure much blood being shed and a favorable outcome in question.
Peaceful means seem doomed at present because of the corporate seizing of our election process and the media.
Way too many people have been numbed with corporate propaganda and religion and lines of division have been driven between all races and classes which hamper any effective response to the corporatists.
Add in that many so called progressives seem to act like safety valves to the heat of dissent instead of the fire in the boiler they should be.
What are we going to do People?
SteppingRazor,
What are we going to do People?
Don't worry. Just wait for your turn to be slaughter.
"Hollow Deficit Debate Ignores the Burden of Afghanistan Military Spending"
should be corrected to
"Hollow Deficit Debate Ignores the Burden of Pentagon Spending."
Pentagon spending as a whole is the problem.
The July 14 New York Times has an article on Admiral Mike Mullins' recent attempts to reach an agreement with the Chinese military which is not happy with the huge US naval and air presence in the Pacific - financed by their own loans to us. The same article has the following from Charles W. Freeman, Obama's unsuccessful nominee to lead the National Intelligence Council:
“The United States is now fiscally hollow,” Mr. Freeman said, noting that the entire American military budget is essentially financed with borrowed money. “Yet we are entering a long-term military rivalry with China on terms that are easily bearable by China but fiscally ruinous for us. This rivalry is all the more disadvantageous because China is competing in notably cost-effective ways, and we are not.”
The deficit debate is as hollow as US military power, tied down for a decade by a few disorganized groups armed with no more than improvised bombs and small arms.
Valatius,
When it comes to hollow, the deficit debate is as hollow as the current occupant of the White House--or just about any of his predecessors.
out-of-control Afghanistan spending brought down the Soviet Union.
Our out-of-control spending for illegal wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia,,,we don't stand a chance.
Ever so ironic, that the big bad amerikan military killing machine has brought about the collapse of the fascist amerika empire ! Now the grand drama of the big fall plays out on the World stage ! No amount of economic bluster by war criminals in washington is gonna save the empire !
There are several silly comments here. We can continue to spend this same hugely ridiculous amount of money on the military if we choose. We simply have to raise taxes a little and watch the spending in other areas. Yes, stupid, but doable. See my link at the top of the comments, complete with pretty colored charts!
Out of control war spending brought the Soviets down and made oligarchs out of hegemonic rulers, trading communism for fascism.
Direct democracy
It is a question of priorities and obviously for Obama and the majority in congress it is more important to continue slaughtering Afghans than it is to maintain social security and medicare. There is also an excellent chance that Obama will start another war before he is finished.
Repairs and reparations and a million PTSD cases to care for all add up.
You cannot kill a radical Muslim religious belief in violent retaliation against an enemy even with the most superior violent retaliatory military weapons and army in the world. Retaliation begets retaliation. The wars are a waste of blood , limbs, sight, hearing, minds, lives and money.
I thought it was Ronnie who brought down the USSR.
Well, I guess if they can't find any better reason to stop the wars than to save money, at least it's a start in the right direction!
What is missing from the Left's discussion of US military spending is a concrete proposal of what an appropriate military budget should be. We all agree that the wars should end, all the foreign military bases should be shut down, and the nuclear arsenal reduced by at least 95%. But what would the US military budget be, in actual numbers, if the US military were dedicated to defence only? Two examples might give some useful perspective. The annual military budget of Israel, which militarily dominates the entire Middle East, is 13 billion dollars. The annual military budget of Canada, which is geographically adjacent to the US but has an even larger territory to defend, and which still is able to devote military resources to wars in Afghanistan and Libya, is 20 billion dollars a year. So let`s say the US military budget (which includes everything - no ``emergency supplements`` for wars or anything else) should be 16 billion dollars a year.
Now admittedly, that`s not good enough. We have to address the economic implications of such a drastic reduction (98.4%, to be exact). So we should also propose economic projects to put the returning soldiers to work and to keep the military companies operating, and to keep money ciruculating through the economy in general. So let`s propose first, that a national health care system be set up that provides free healthcare to all US-Americans and all non-citizens who pay income tax. And at the same time we will build a massive modern rail system that will connect all US cities and towns. That will take care of the soldiers. And the companies can be re-tooled to make the trains. That`s a start. If there`s still unused capacity, we can all easily come up with other public works projects, I`m sure. How about it?
Mark
nothing but a 100% reduction in all nuclear weapons - worldwide - is acceptable.
the same percentage would be preferable for all "defense' spending.
the easiest way to love your enemies is not to make any.
Whether there is a 100% reduction in the nuclear arsenal, or merely a 99% reduction, leaving 4 or 5 missiles for deterrence only, the overall military budget should be reduced by over 95%. That's the point.
Personally, I think the world would be a safer and more peaceful place if every country had four or five nuclear bombs for deterrence. No country would dare invade another if that were the case. You, on the other hand, think zero is the only suitable number for nuclear weapons. Fair enough. That is something reasonable people can disagree about. What *no* decent and sane person can defend, on the other hand, is the premise that any state needs 100 or more nuclear weapons.
Mark
I think what McDermott is alluding to is the bigger question that faces our species as a whole: are we capable of overcoming our tribal roots sufficiently enough to realize that we have a common future on this planet? Until someone finds a way to make peace more profitable than conflict, I expect us to continue down the "war cul-de-sac" with political and business leaders cheerleading us to give up our lives, standard of living, and freedoms so that the chosen few can retain the wealth and power that they are accustomed and, as they see it, entitled to.
We have spent way over $10,000 in the Afghan war for every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, maybe even closing in on $20,000 each (based on a population of less than 30 million and expenditures over $300 billion). We could have bribed the entire country to be on our side, but instead we used the money to kill them because every bullet expended means more dollars into the coffers of the military industrial complex.